Skip to main content
Glama

list_project_rules

A project's rules: when an issue enters a state, a checklist from a template is appended to its description. A rule appends its checklist to an issue's description when the issue ENTERS the rule's state — from the board, the Jira API or update_issue alike. The block starts with a hidden marker line '[//]: # (pm-rule:)'; while that line is in the description, entering the state again adds nothing (the journal says 'alreadyThere'). A [~username] in the template is a mention: that person is notified when the checklist lands. A checklist that would make the description too long is not added and the journal says 'tooLong'; the move itself still happens. 'trigger' says WHEN: 'entered' (the default — the issue entered 'status'), 'versionReleased' (a version it goes out in was marked released), 'subtasksDone' (every issue under it is finished — the rule acts on the PARENT) or 'subtaskStarted' (an issue under it was taken into work — the parent again); or what the project's repository said through its webhook: 'branchCreated' (a branch naming the issue was made), 'mrOpened', 'mrMerged' or 'mrClosed' (a merge request — a pull request on GitHub — naming the issue was opened, merged, or closed without merging). An issue is named by its key in the branch, the title or the description, and only this project's issues are touched. 'branch' narrows the three merge-request events to a request going INTO that branch, e.g. 'main'. Nobody is behind a webhook, so such a rule acts as whoever last saved or switched it on, whatever its action. 'deployed' fires when a pipeline reports that the issue went out to an environment (report_deployment); 'environment' narrows it to one of the project's environments by name, e.g. 'staging'. Only 'entered' has a 'status'; pass an empty one for the others. 'fromStatus' narrows any of them to an issue coming from that state: the state it has just left for 'entered', the state it stands in for the rest. A rule with action 'move' MOVES the issue to 'moveToStatus' instead of appending anything, and has no template (pass an empty one). The move is an ordinary one — made as whoever last saved or switched on the rule, asked of the project's workflow, written to the history with the rule's name, and followed by the rules of the state it lands in. A workflow that refuses it leaves a 'moveRefused' line with the reason in the journal and nothing else; 'moved' is a move made; 'tooDeep' is a move not made because rules had already moved issues three times off one event. A rule with action 'agent' is a DUTY instead: it says which issues may be handed to an agent role (agentRole, e.g. 'product') and what the agent may do with them. Its 'template' is then the INSTRUCTION — what doing such an issue means in this project — and nothing is appended anywhere. A duty may have no state (pass an empty 'status'): then an issue is handed only by a person. agentActions is a list from: describe, subtasks, ask, wiki, report, support. agentFields names the fields it may set: priority, labels, duedate, or the project's own fields by name. doneStatus is the state it moves the issue to when done — never a finished one. capUsd raises what one task may cost, up to 5 dollars. Commenting is always allowed; finishing, deleting, reassigning and anything outside the issue never are. Saving or switching on a duty makes it yours: it runs on your behalf and access, and is switched off if you lose the project. Answers with each rule's id (the other rule tools take it), action, trigger, state, conditions (type, label, fromStatus, branch — null means any), template, moveToStatus and whether it is on, and for a duty its 'agent' part; with the state and type names, the triggers and the actions a rule may use, the agent roles, actions and fields a duty may name where agents are on; and 'canEdit'. Any member may read them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectKeyYesProject key, e.g. 'ONB'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a great deal of domain behavior (triggers, 'alreadyThere', 'tooLong', 'moveRefused', 'tooDeep', agent duties), which is genuinely valuable context. However, it is framed as spec documentation for building rules rather than as behavior of this read operation, and it never states whether the call is read-only, requires permissions beyond membership, or paginates. The closing 'Any member may read them' is the one piece of operation-level access transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is an extremely long run-on block that buries the actual operation ('list') and its single parameter far from the start. Most of the text is rule-semantics documentation that belongs in create/update_project_rule, not in a list tool. It is neither front-loaded nor appropriately sized for a one-parameter read.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-param read with no output schema, the description does end by enumerating the return shape (id, action, trigger, state, conditions, template, moveToStatus, on-state, agent, canEdit) plus the enumerations available, which is genuinely complete on the return side. But because there is no output schema and no annotations, the absence of explicit read-only/permission framing and the buried purpose leave real gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter exists (projectKey) and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is high. The description adds no per-parameter detail, but with a single fully documented required key there is little to add, warranting the 0-params/high-coverage baseline of 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with an explanation of what a project rule does ('when an issue enters a state, a checklist from a template is appended to its description'), which is helpful background, but it never states plainly that this tool lists/reads project rules. The agent must infer the verb from the tool name. It distinguishes itself from create/update/delete_project_rule only implicitly via the closing 'Answers with each rule's id'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus siblings like get_project_rule_runs, create_project_rule, or update_project_rule. The mention that 'the other rule tools take' the returned id implies this is the discovery step, but that is an inference rather than guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources